Cool. I'm still sticking with "One Man, One Vote".
Of course you are; you are stupid and uneducated. Poor JackOFF; born without a brain.

Cool. I'm still sticking with "One Man, One Vote".

It only seems fair to you because you are uneducated and stupid, JackOFF.
Of course you are; you are stupid and uneducated. Poor JackOFF; born without a brain.![]()
I think it's based on the concept of "Majority Rules".

No JackOFF, it isn't. It is based on ignorance and a glaring lack of intelligence. If we did it your way, Middle America would have no say in the choices for President and would rapidly become irrelevant.
That was the genius of our founders and the Constitution; they did not want a few populous states to have a monopoly on the White House. They were right. You're just a dumbass.![]()
Once you start to manipulate the system, the more complex you make it, the more likely the appearance of fraud.
There is nothing complicated about the electoral system unless you are a simple minded fool; are you one JackOFF? As for fraud, the current system makes fraud almost an impossibility. Popular voting, can be easily defrauded.
Just look at California. It doesn't make any sense that Orange County, a bastion of Republican representatives, somehow, and miraculously, suddenly went to ALL Democrats.
That sounds like a rigged system. The Few dominate the Many.
Do you support the "Will of the People", or the Will of a Minority?
Well, you would be wrong again JackOFF. The idea of one person, one vote would be the FEW states dominating the many. There are TWO states that would dominate the rest. That would be a rigged system which would favor TWO states and Democrats.
That would result in most of the States being irrelevant in Presidential campaigns and getting ignored by ALL the candidates who know that if they can win in New York or California, they can win the White House. It would also result in a Democratic Party Autocracy in the White House.
And I doubt it would stop there.
It could dissolve the Union.
I support a Constitutionally limited central Government for the people and by the people. Not a one party autocracy in the White House.
'Central Government'. So ... not too concerned about 'States'. Check.

'For the People, by the People'. So ... again, not too concerned about 'States'. Check.
The founders were wary of democracy for good reason.
If the Lefties ever did succeed in doing away with the EC there would be a rebellion from the smaller states. Things could even get ugly. Rather than changing the system democrats should learn to win within the system as it is.
Also, Trump sucks only resonates in the states Hillary won so running on that ‘message’ is asking for an electoral repeat of 2016. And this time around, Trump has the advantage of being an encumbant in what will likely be a strong economy.
Do you support the "Will of the People", or the Will of a Minority?

The will of the minority ... as in 300 democrat officials and 5 scotus judges taking over the healthcare industry and jamming obamacare down the throats of 300 million people?
You good with abolishing representative gov't and going to a true direct democracy (also known as mob rule)?
The will of the minority ... as in 300 democrat officials and 5 scotus judges taking over the healthcare industry and jamming obamacare down the throats of 300 million people?
You good with abolishing representative gov't and going to a true direct democracy (also known as mob rule)?
"Definition of democracy
1a : government by the people
especially : rule of the majority
b : a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections"

Dems want the flyover states' votes to be worthless.
we are a Republic not a democracyMost people see 'Democracy' as "One Man, One Vote". (you get the idea)